resource within the military that there may be some talk about moving field hospitals out. is that in the works >> moving air force or navy filled hospitals into the area? >> i spoke mostly about the international catcher routers in my remarks but we also have medical capabilities that have closed and support of the efforts. . .

we will have the colombians providing a hospital shift to the support of our effort here. we are, obviously, in an hourly and daily assessment of the need purses capability. if we need it from the department, we will request it. i am confident it will be delivered as quickly as possible. >> i am from nbc news. there have been reports that reports -- that security is stable. there have been reports that some of the refugee camps, the locals are massing together for sexual assault. is there any talk of the u.s. military helping out to police the area, keeping the locals

safe? >> we are working with the u.n. security forces. we had several meetings today with the general and his death at the joint task force level. we met with him last night at about 2100 hours to discuss the situation on the ground and our respective capabilities. in the incident that occurred, two were in the vicinity of port-au-prince. his responsiveness to those incidents was not only timely but also extremely effective. he has demonstrated that capability time and again in responding to the international relief effort here. as i stated earlier, the current

effort to assist the haitian national police in restoring their capability -- that will be an effort led by the inl and supported by the uncivilian police effort here that is already in place and is being reinforced. we believe that the emerging incidents of instability are within the current capabilities , and our commanders on the grounds are commanding their officers to move them where they are needed most to ensure that we do not get an unstable environment that affect our ability to accomplish the mission. >> does that mean that the haitian police or menu dead? who is policing the areas where these haitians are now living?

but who is in charge of procuring those people? >> the apparent security force on the ground today, across the country, is menutia. they are the ones dealing with the majority of the occasion of large gatherings of people. where incidents occur within local communities in areas around port-au-prince and in the outlying areas, that the haitian national police are responding to those and becoming more capable in dealing with those. >> do you see any possibility to change the rules of engagement in order to secure port-au- prince? >> suffice to say that the

commander reviews the rules of engagement every day in response to the environmental conditions as they change our rules of engagement remain on target for the missions that we have to execute. our commander is on the ground -- our commanders on the ground had the necessary authorities to conduct their operations. >> we hear some of these numbers like 40,000 liters of water or humanitarian rations. these are big numbers. compared to the needs, it does not sound big. what is your assessment of the capability compared to the need, especially for food and water to millions of people. i heard before i came in here about the u.s. troops landing on

the ground. can you tell us what that is all about? >> obviously, a part of our daily is staff -- staff work is to fully understand both in the changes in the demand on the ground and the capacity that is building here in haiti. in the example of the delivery of water, our objective is to restorer water production and distribution to levels that were here before the earthquake. we are already seeing the haitian system stand up. local delivery trucks are operating in port-au-prince

there are field delivery trucks also delivered team -- delivering feel in outlying areas. as our assessment determines that we have a gap between the demand on the ground and our ability to deliver, we obviously then adjust the priority on delivery of supplies running into the area to enter what is needed can be met by the commanders on the ground. >> the other question about the report is the u.s. troops parachuting in the presidential palace grounds? >> we have not had any airborne operations of personnel here in haiti. we have none planned at present.

the only insertion of our troops is in to the port of the distribution of water and humanitarian assistance. there is a distribution point at the displaced personnel gathering there on the grounds of the presidential palace. that report does probably linked to the resupply of that distribution. >> you said usaid was in charge of search and recovery. does that mean it is not in a recovery mission? -- now in a recovery mission? >> that is the faces of the effort involved, search and recovery. i combine the two because they are linked in terms of a continuum.

i am not telling you that the search effort is over. that is usaid's responsibility to direct when the shift occurs. >> the competing priorities -- water, food, medical, security -- what is your top priority? >> obviously, our top priority is to continue to increase our distribution capacity of the supplies that are building on the ground, both of those delivered by the department of defense and those contributions from the international and interagency community. we are increasingly capable of doing that. based on back, the number one priority today is our ability to increase the ground vehicles

necessary to disburse those supplies. it is still important for the next two or three days to continue to increase the delivery of water until we had a self sustaining production capability on the ground. our third priority at present is to be able to continue to bring the in a polar capability that will enable the full opening of the ports and construction equipment necessary to begin the reconstruction, the rebel removal efforts, here on the ground. >> bloomberg news. what capability does the comfort of the view in increase hospital and medical capabilities of what you have now on the ground? >> i am not sure i caught the

second half of what he said. the bottom line is the u.s. naval ship comfort is 250 bed capacity, fully manned with medical professionals to increase by 250 patients of the current capacity here on the ground in haiti. by midday tomorrow, we expect to be able to transfer high priority patients, identified by the minister of health and medical professionals on the ground here in haiti, to ensure that those most in need of trauma care and advanced medical procedures will be able to receive those on the "comfort." >> on the 10,000 u.s. personnel question, the number keeps flying around.

is it 10,000 troops are 10,000 combined naval and marine corps on the vessels. >> the current capability that has been requested and our assessment of what is needed on the ground is 10,000 total military personnel. >> does that include navy? >> i am sorry. i did not hear it. >> that includes a naval personnel? >> that includes all department of defense personnel supporting operations here in the joint operation of haiti. >> this is abc news. if i could go back to the creation of water and water supply, there is great interest

in these giant bladders of have been produced. is that happening on the ground? is that happening offshore? how many are being delivered? what is being injured the people of getting the water? >> yes andyes. it is -- and yes. it is being produced afloat and motored in. it can then be slung loaded to the areas that it needs. it is being produced in multiple areas around haiti and it is treated by a multitude of teams. in some cases, it is being produced in close proximity of existing distribution points and is being pumped directly into the those areas. it is being distributed by the

vehicle. we have all means of our systems being put into operations to increase the capacity of water protection on the ground. our current estimate, and this is based on an involvinevolving assessment of the demand and where we are reaching -- reaching the people, is within the next four or 5 days we will approach the self sustaining threshold. >> the bladders are being filled where or is it being produced -- ? >> i am not sure.

the bladders are being filled at multiple areas alongside the ground. it is in the vicinity of the water purification unit. if they are being filled on ships at sea with water purification units and then as long loaded in by helicopters. >> itunes one to know if you could talk a little bit about the implementation of the agreement with the u.n. to repair his -- to read prioritize the humanitarian efforts. [unintelligible] >> i did not get your first question. i will answer your second question.

we are supporting the evacuation of american citizens each and every day as we have been directed to do. that number is ranging from 800 to 1000 a day. thus far, the daily arrival at the embassy for evacuations has been evacuated each day on the aircraft that have brought forces and equipment into port- au-prince. there is a concurrent effort on going by the international community to evacuate other citizens, and those efforts are being prioritized by the international community and in coordination with the government of haiti. i am confident they will continue to exert our resources

to exert we can meet the needs of every citizen of the international community here in haiti. i apologize, but i met the point where i need to move to a different location for a subsequent commitment. i'm going to provide just a brief closing comment. first and foremast, i thank you for the opportunity to talk to you today and to give you an updated the current situation on the ground and in haiti and the extraordinary efforts under way by the international community supported by the entire department of defense and the united nations to supported the government of haiti and the people of haiti. in the days to come, our forces and capability to distribute water and rations and supplies will increase. we are joined with a dedicated team of teams committed to

helping haiti and the people of haiti to be evicted out of extraordinary tragedy. thanks for the opportunity to talk to you. i look forward to update. >> thank you for the time. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

[speaking in foreign language]

>> now remarks abide the usaid director, rajiv shah.

sphecid reporters for about five minutes. the present charges with responsibility for responding to the tragic crisis in haiti. he charged us to have a slit in court and make it and aggressive response. we have been doing that from the beginning. many departments send people and resources to haiti almost immediately. today was a chance to take stock of the performance and to make sure we reducing everything we

possibly could to accelerate our efforts and do even better by reaching more people in haiti with needed in critical supplies of food, water, shelter, and other critically needed items. we have a broad range of principles in the room. the role fema has played has been critical. urban search and rescue has been a phenomenal effort. there have been thousands of rescue professionals at more than 510 americans that has saved over 70 lives. it has been an extraneous -- extraordinary effort. they have sent disaster medical assistance teams to 260 professional such a now deployed on the ground providing medical

services to meet the critical need in haiti. secretary clinton spoke about her personal engagement with the president of haiti and leaders of foreign ministers around the world to make sure this is a strong and coordinated response. they are critical efforts made to do this. that is just a little bit of what we discussed. the main point i would make is that we are very focused on doing a lot more every day than we did before. in that context, we are trying to do that we now the date that. we now have 18 areas producing new water. they are providing bottled water

and water on site and the dominican republic. the artistry to that they are out port-au-prince -- they are destroy the team that throughout -- they are distributing that throughout port-au-prince. the food is another sector where we are clearly doing more. we have deployed 600,000 more daily rations to provide 17 million mre's, which was the request of the world food program. we secured a significant amount of local rights so we can make sure the haitian population has access to food. we go through other sectors. are we doing more every single day?

>> why hasn't the pentagon set up army hospitals? >> we have been working in close coordination with a lot of different donors for medical assistan -- assistance teams. this is a major hospital with the best the to work with a thousand patients. we are aggressively putting all of these resources together so we can make sure we are providing health and medical services very broadly. >> when are you hearing this may turn from search and rescue to humanitarian assistance? >> our fairfax, virginia team was the first team to get into haiti. there are so many other teens came from over the world.

our search and rescue teams had another rescue today. it is just a few hours ago. they are going to keep working in searching. the woman that was pulled out yesterday afternoon had her husband and daughter right there. she is pulled out after six days. the whole crowd started singing and chanting "usa." it is a great example of what can be done. they are still on the rescue mission. >> [inaudible] >> the planning principles of our to make sure things we do collectively support of the relief efforts and are a sustainable as possible. our preference is to provoke -- provide local distribution in purification them bringing water in from the inside.

we are bringing in 7000 bottles from outside water. the main effort is to have local production. current production levels are 8 million liters a day for port- au-prince. it will create the conditions we do not need that. >> thank you very much. we need to get him back to work. thank you. >> on tomorrow morning, a recap of massachusett's election. we will talk to build adair --

bill adair is in keeping track of president obama's campaign promises. it begins a 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> net three, president obama delivers his for stated the union address to congress, laying out his vision for the future of the country in this plan to deal with issues such as unemployment, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. >> massachusetts voted for republican scott brown today in a special election to finish the remaining two years in taken in the post as senate term. we will bring you scott brown's victory speech in a moment. first come here is -- first, here is his opponent, martha: coakly coakley.

>> [chanting "martha"] >> thank you very much. [inaudible] >> thank you. thank you. i just got off the phone with scott brown. i offered him my congratulations and best wishes on his victory tonight. i wish to him in jail and to his daughters -- i wished to him, and gayle, and his two daughters well.

the wish to get better news tonight. we are not. i want to take this moment for all of you in this room and those of you who are probably still out working, you pour your heart and souls into this campaign. there are thousands of you out on the street since september. i want to say a sincere thank you for everything you did it, not just for me, but for the campaign. let's give yourselves a huge round of applause for what you have done. thank you. thank you. i will not forget the fierce determination with which we approach this, not just about this campaign, but the things we believe in and still believe then and we will still fight for after tonight.

i know you will join me in that. we never lost our focus for our determination. you never demonstrated discouragement as far as i am concerned. i know how hard we worked for th. you were there every step of the way as he went forward in the primaries through tonight and focused on the issues that i believe everyone in massachusetts does care about and everyone in this country should be focused on as we go forward. i want to say a very sincere and loving thank you to my husband. [applause] i had him out and the campaign trail for the last couple of days. i can tell you there are at

least two dogs that are very happy about tonight's vote. we are going to be back with them. i have to think my family, many of whom are here behind me, my sister' \ /s -- my sisters are all here. my nieces and nephews. the terrific staff on their campaign. if you worked with our staff and everybody else you gave sweat, but come in tears, you know how much heart and so we put into it. it was my honor to be working with them and you during this campaign. you have become an extended family for me. i tell some people might in a dysfunctional family. that is ok. i'll never forget the passion and energy.

that includes the french of everybody who has worked with us. -- the french ship of everybody who has worked with us. -- friendship of everybody who has worked with us. i want to thank those who was with us here on sunday. he just called me. he said that we cannot win them all. he knows better than anyone. he appreciates what i did and what you did and he extends his heartfelt thanks. as i know from losing a campaign several years ago, i feel very

strongly about that if you do not run you cannot win. you do not always win all the time. they put in our best efforts. sometimes it is more important to travel far than to arrive. [applause] we will continue to travel. i know that. i know that many of you had the pleasure of seeing president clinton as he was on the campaign trail. i want to thank him. i need to send my thanks to vicki kennedy who campaigned with me all weekend. she was the source of dignity

and grace and humor. she gave me a good tip. she said i'm telling my saidted -- i am channeling my knee inn ted. -- i am channeling my inner ted. much love to her and her family in this endeavor. this is the deal. although our campaign and tonight, we know that our mission goes on. [cheers] i am heartbroken at the results. i know that you are also. i know that we will get up to get it tomorrow and continue this fight even with this result. there will be plenty of wednesday morning quarterbacking about what happened and what went right or wrong.

i know that everyone is brutally honest on my own performance. we will be honest about the assessment of this race. although i am very disappointed, i always respect the boaters -- voters choice. anyone who is in on the campaign trail has seen the anger of folks who are frustrated and concerned. they are angry about health care issues. they are worried about inability to properly care for those who are fighting. i had hoped in the best interests of our state and the country to go to washington to address these issues. i hope that as a nation and, we can do better in the future -- and as a commonwealth that we can do better in the future. i will continue to fight in

address them here but everyone in massachusetts who cares about these issues. for me and for you, it the campaign comes to an end. there is plenty of work to do here is massachusetts. we will always remember our trip they senator ted kennedy and his words, "the work begins anew. the hope rises again. the dream lives on." thank you. thank you. [chanting "martha"] ♪

♪ tonight is going to be a good night ♪ in [applause] thank you so much. what a great day. thank you very much. [cheering] [chanting "go scott, go"] >> thank you so much what a great reception. i bet they can hear this sharing of the way in washington, d.c.

-- charing all the way in washington, d.c. >> [cheering] >> thank you. thank you. yes, i did this morning. thank you. i hope they are playing close attention. tonight the independent voice in massachusetts has spoken. from spring killed two cape cod, the voters decided toe

odds. we have delivered a great victory. i think the people of massachusetts for electing me as your next united states senator. >> [cheering] >[ chanting "41"]

>> everyday i hold this office, i will give that is all inmates to serve you well and make you proud. -- all in me to serve you well and make you proud. i will never -- thank you. while the honor is mine, the senate seat belongs to no one person or political party. as i have said before, this is the people's seat. >> [chatning "people's seat"] >> thank you very much.

i spoke to the center. he has completed his work as the senator. i spoke to him. he is very gracious. he welcomes me as soon as i can get there. i want to thank him from the bottom of my heart. >> [chanting indiscriminately] >> i want to thank him very much. the people have filled the office themselves. i am ready to go to washington without delay.

i also want to thank martha coakley. the contest is behind this and now we can come together. thank you. this special collection came about because we want -- we lost someone very dear to massachusetts and america. senator kennedy was a tireless worker and servant. he is a force like no other in this state.

the first call i made was to his wife. i told her that his name will always demand the attention and respect by the people of massachusetts. i told her that we feel the same about her. there is no replacing a man like that. tonight i honor his memory and i pledge to be the very best and try to be a worthy successor to the late senator kennedy. i said at the very beginning when i said down at the dinner table with my family that when or lose we would win -- run a race that will make all or -- that win or lose, we would run a

race that would make us proud. we ran a clean, up the campaign. i would not trade that for anything. when i first started running, i asked for a lot of help. i knew it was going to be knee against the machine -- me against the machine. i was wrong. it was all of us against the machine. tonight we have shown everybody now that you are the machine.

i am glad that my mom and dad, brothers and sisters, and so many family members are here tonight. before i go any further, i want to introduce someone that is very special to me. yanase much of her on the campaign trail. i would like to introduce you to my wife. she cannot join me on the campaign trail because of work as a journalist. l.a. you in on a little secret. -- i will let you in on a little secret. she did not stay neutral today. she actually voted for the winner.

as always, i relied on her love and support and that of our to lovely daughters. i want to thank them for their help as well. and they are both available, in case anyone is watching. no, no, no, no. [laughter] only kidding. arianna is definitely not available. but haley -- [laughter] this is arianna.

i can see i'm going to get in trouble when i get home. arianna will be returning in a dare to 2 per studies. -- in a day or two to oersted these. she has been giving her all to this campaign. as always, her sister and her have been a job well to us. we are so grateful to them both for their professionalism. even before the campaign performances, you have heard her voice already on american idol. many fans know that she is pretty good on the court.

the reason i bring that up is because list go to the president tonight, i asked the president -- because he has a couple of basketball courts -- [laughter] [cheering] the first thing i said was, would you like me to the drive the truck down to washington and take a hit? then i said, i know you like basketball, but why do not you put your best player and we will take you on a 212 -- two on two.

he had a good sense of humor. we have a nice laugh. i do appreciate it. i'm proud for many people here. i am grateful for all those across massachusetts who came through. i especially want to thank a very special friend whose encouragement from the beginning help show me the way to victory. that is governor mr. romney. thank you.

i will never forget the help of another man who took the time to meet with me. he told me that i could actually win. he came in the confidence for the fight. it is also characteristic of a true hero. i want to thank my new colleague, senator john mccain. [applause] on a night like this when some many put their name on a statewide ballot, you think back to the first people who gave you a chance and believed. for the trust they put in me, i want to thank my neighbors and friends and my home town.

this started right here with all of you. that to me tell you, when i first got to feeling something big was happening was when i was driving along the road out in central massachusetts. i knew things were starting to click when i saw a hand made scott brown yard sign that i put there myself. this little campaign of hours was destined for great things. the message went far beyond.

it all started with me, my truck, and a few amount of dedicated volunteers. however, it ended with an air force one making an emergency run to logan -- [laughter] he talked about some the things he disagreed with me on. when he started to criticize my truck, that is where i draw the line. throughout this race, we had the machine scared unscrambling. for them, it is the beginning of an election year filled with many surprises. i can tell you that.

they will -- when there is trouble in massachusetts, there is trouble everywhere, and they know it. [applause] [chanting "usa"] i met with people, looked them in the eye, shook their hand, and ask them for their vote. i did not ask about their party affiliation and they did not ask me about time. one thing is clear. one thing is very clear. people do not want a trillion

dollar health care plan that is being forced on the american people. this bill is not being debated openly and fairly. it will raise taxes. it will hurt medicare. it will destroy jobs and reincarnations -- and ruin our nation -- and run ourn ation deeper into debt. it is not in the interest of our state. it is not in the interests of our state and country. we can do better. >> [chanting "yes we can"]

when i have travelled, i've had a lot of fun. you guys are all having fun. thank you. we have more of a show coming for you. we are very excited. when i am in washington, i will work in the senate with the democrats and republicans to reform health care in an open and honest way. no more closed door meetings and backroom deals. -- with an out of touch party leadership. no more hiding costs. no more leading trillions in debt for our children to pay. in health care, we need to start fresh. we need to start fresh and work together to do the job right.

once again, we can do better. i will work in the senate to put government back on the side of people who create jobs in the millions of people who need jobs. remember, as president john f. kennedy stated, that starts with across the board tax cuts for businesses and families to create jobs. put more money in people's pockets and stimulate the economy. it is that simple. i will work with the senate. i will work with the senators to defend our nation's interests. we will keep our military second to none. [applause]

as in lieutenant-colonel and 30 year member of the massachusetts army guard --i will absolute the keep in touch with all of those who has served in get our veterans all the benefits that they deserve. let me say this. -- to the people that wish to harm us, i believe that our constitution and laws exist to protect this nation. [applause] >> [chanting "usa"]

>> let me make it very, very clear. they do not grant rights and privileges to the enemies in war times. the message we need to send is that our tax dollars, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them and not lawyers to defend them. . .

i just know -- is so wonderful to be not only on the stage, but with you folks here, and i want to make a special thanks to my mom and dad. [applause] thank you very much for respecting them, and i know i am a little off script, but let me talk about raising taxes, taking

over health care. what i have heard again and again on the campaign trail is that our political leaders have become impatient with our backroom deals, and we can do better. >> yes, we can! yes, we can! >> the funny thing is, they thought you were all on board with their vision. yes, they did. they thought they owned -- owned your vote. tonight you and you and you

will set them straight. thank you. [applause] across this country to all those who are listening -- we are united by basic conviction that needs to be clearly stated to win a majority. if anyone thinks of the next election -- anyone doubts for the next election cycle, let them take a look of what happened in massachusetts. what happened here in massachusetts can happen all over america.

we're all witnesses to the truth that ideals, hard work, strength of heart can overcome the political machine. as you know, we ran a campaign never to be forgotten and led a cause that deserves all that we could give it, and now because of your independence and trusts, i will hold the seat once filled by patriots from john quincy adams to john f. kennedy and his brother ted. [applause] as i probably take up the duty you have given me, i promise to

do my best for massachusetts and america every time the roll is called. [applause] i go to washington as the representative of no special interest, answering only to my conscience and to you, the people. however, i know i have a lot to learn, but i know who i am and who i served. i am scott brown. i drive a truck. [applause]

let me just say in conclusion -- first, thank you from the bottom of me and my family's hearts for your continued support, but i am nobody's senator except yours. thank you. thank you very much. ♪ >> ♪ i got a feeling that tonight is going to be a good night ♪ ♪ i have a feeling that tonight is going to be in a good night, that tonight is going to be a good night ♪

that tonight is going to be a good night, that tonight is going to be a good night, that tonight is going to read a good, did night -- good night ♪ ♪ that tonight is going to beat a good night ♪ ♪ tonight, tonight, i got the feeling. let's live it up. >> the analysis of the election and scott brown's victory is tomorrow. you can watch it live here on c- span.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] ♪ tonight, our interviews with the author of "game change." charles krauthammer discusses obama's foreign policy, and then the election night speeches from massachusetts, and later, today's inauguration ceremony for incoming governor, chris christie.

the senate homeland security committee holds a year in today on aviation security and the christmas day bombing plot. the homeland security expert and dennis blair are among those scheduled to test of faith. you can watch this live beginning at 9:00 -- scheduled to testify. you can watch this live beginning at 9:30 a.m. >> this weekend, john neeler believes the chance of a terrorist attack in the u.s. is much smaller than expected. also, a look at the automobile in modern society from operation costs to global warming. find the schedule on booktv.org. >> now an interview with the authors of "game change,"

recently published book on the presidential campaign. as of tuesday, it was amazon's number one selling book. this is about an hour. >> we are joined by the authors, john heilemann and mark halperin. i heard you say you had a list of things you thought would make news in this book. what on that list has not made news that you were surprised about? of things. when john and i set out to write the book, we hope it would be interesting book to read an interesting story. but we were also going for breaking news because we thought there were things that were uncovered during the campaign. i will give you one. john will have others. sarah palin was picked by john mccain and people were shocked when it happened to that time,

the campaign said that she had been on consideration for a long time and receive as much of a background check, so-called vetting, as any of the other people john mccain considered. there is skepticism about that at the time did not of the political journalism parade moved on and there were other things to cover. -- there was skepticism about that at the time it. but the political journals a great move on and there were other things to cover. the truth is that she was brought into the game a very late after their main focus, joe lieberman, fell apart as an option. they needed a game changing pick and joe lieberman was again changing the of one sort and sarah palin was another. in book, we quote the vetting a report by washington lawyer who was told on a friday afternoon to get ready and in the space of less than two days look into sarah palin's background, not by

making a phone call or interviewing anybody, but simply by doing on-line searches, because they needed to keep it secret. looking at the process by which john mccain picked a virtual stranger as his running mate was something that we thought that a lot of attention. guest: there is a ton of stuff out in the book that we thought would have gotten a lot of attention. i will give you three examples. one of them is a macro story. in the wake of the campaign, one of the pieces of conventional wisdom that was compounded by the obama operation, the question of race was something that they did not really think about. it was not factored into the decision to run, it was a non- issue. that was one of the things they said over and over again after his election. throughout the book, we talk about how much they woere in

fact and obsessed with race as a political factor. it produced advertisement after advertisement, fake ads that they thought the mccain campaign would run against them that would be racially frame and how they would respond to that. it was topic a -- host: let me show your view is that what about what you talk about that. "while cash from the mccain campaign was coming up with negative ads on the fly, scribbling scripps, in fact, on the backs of napkins, the obama campaign was determining which ones were most dangerous and to develop responses." guest: the produced dozens upon dozens of spots, and also to look at those ads to be prepared to respond than and other spots that would deal with the problem.

the question of what would obama's alleged connections to muslimism -- the obama campaign was constantly trying to respond. we have a great anecdote worked at one point the obama campaign was trying to produce an ad that would take care of all the questions about his race, his alleged muslimism, and alleged lack of patriotism all in one ad the script of this ridiculous he reads the script and says this is too much. i will say two things quickly. we have what i think is a strong comment on the financial crisis. we talk about what happened in the white house meeting. it has hardly been mentioned, and i think it is interesting. it shows how well-prepared obama

was. our republican aide in the meeting says it seem to him if you closed your eyes you would believe this was the president of the united states, not george bush or john mccain, and we have a very interesting story about david geffen and maureen dowd and a column she wrote, and how that came to be. this thing between a famous hollywood mogul and this colonist, how they dealt one severe blow against clinton's inevitability. >> let's go more into what john was just talking about. there is a back story. she was trying to write that column before she agreed to do it. >> she was, and it is an interesting case to not on -- two not only prominent people

but iconic people. e -- it columnist of our time, and david geffen, this incredibly influential hollywood figure. he was the head out atf dreamworks and he had turned against the clintons but he was unhappy with the clintons' choice of pardons, not granting a pardon that david geffen had lobbied for us. david geffen had turned on the clintons and felt that they were, if not actual crop, kind of morally bankrupt. -- if not actually corrupt, kind of marleigh backups. he loved obama. when maureen dowd hurt even given to speak in new york --

heard david geffen speak in new york, he was very tough on bill and hillary clinton. maureen in the audience was struck not only by how tough he was talking about clinton's morality, but here they were in new york, the state hillary clinton represented, and the audience seemed very enthusiastic about the notion of that criticism of hillary clinton. over a long period of time, maureen was lobbying david geffen to take what he said at that event and amplify it in an interview with. she was in california at the night before david geffen was to host a fund-raiser for barack obama and she convinces him to do the interview. host: what year is this? guest: 2007. barack obama has gotten into the race and has created a lot of excitement, and in communities that are vitally important if you are trying to become the

democratic nominee for president, hollywood, new york, liberal circles, hillary was trying to not let obama rise up as a major competitor to her. for david given to agree to host this fund-raiser was a big blow to the clintons but they were desperate to try to overshadow that. it showed that a hollywood support and the democratic party would not be monolithic. again, maureen convinces david geffen had to do the interview her column goes on the web, and rock obama and -- and obama an then hillary were at this -- and obama was at this fund-raiser. it did not cause any problems for obama. as we report in the book, it was worse for the clinton than they thought. it was the first time that a lot to the issues of bill clinton's personal life, whether the clintons were old politics,

whether they were too loose with the truth, was laid out. the one-two punch of it being laid out by david geffen, a pillar of a hollywood establishment, via the maureen dowd column, was devastating. host: i am sure that many people are eager to ask your questions and make comments. sylvia, democrats like, you are first. caller: i saw you all on another show and you are talking about that bill and hillary were upset during the iowa caucuses that the obama campaign had cheated. from what i read and what i heard, the reason they were so upset was because the obama campaign bussed in lots of young people from illinois with the help of a corn -- of acorn, and they showed up at the caucuses early and they locked out the

hillary voters. host: john heilemann? guest: a caller is exactly right about what the clintons believe. that, to the letter, what we report in the book -- hillary had been concerned about the caucuses for awhile, that they were to lose, and that he was the state senator from illinois and that this could happen to it the night of the iowa caucuses, when hillary had come in third, she and former president clinton are in a hotel suite and they are as angry as their aides have ever seen about what has happened. she finished far off third and they are incredibly upset. former president clinton starts going on about the fact that all of these people, to order 39,000 people had shown up. -- 239,000 people had shown up. it was incomprehensible to him that many people had shown up to

the caucuses, and he seized on the notion that the shooting had occurred and that the buses had come in from -- that cheating had occurred and that losses had come in from illinois to five days later, he suggested that hillary raise this question in a debate, at the outcome of the caucuses should be invalidated because obama had done this thing. president clinton was suggesting to staff that they hired lawyers and challenge the results of the iowa caucuses. we cannot know with any certainty that the charges true, but we spoke to many of the clinton white staff, people long experienced in iowa politics and are very loyal to the clintons and none of them believe that the charges are true but as upset as the clintons were, at what they were looking for some excuse for her performance in there. these are people who would have every reason to believe it was true, and the people who know the iowa caucuses best believe that it is a false charge.

host: 80 on the independents' line. amy, could mo -- amy, good morning. i will remind you to turn the television down but i will move on and put you on hold, amy, and move on to palin on the republican line. caller -- ellen on the republican line. caller: i say that i have not read the book, but these folks being so close the connected to the campaign and everybody was involved and all the candidates, i want to know why it is that the most important pieces of all of these people, clinton, obama, mccain -- how everything was shielded, and the most important aspects never came out, and the democrats were protected down to every minuscule little whatever -- the important things to not cam out to it when it came to

mccain and sarah palin, how they attacked her come up for clothes and her eating habits, but yet when it comes to not even reporting on any of the policies or believfs or agenda stuff that obama was going to go for, which he is doing now, not having his pieces, or any of his background, everybody saying he is so smart and intelligent and sarah palin is so on qualified when she had been elected, starting the school system, whatever, a municipal mayor to governor, and she is so stupid and irresponsible -- she had held all these offices. host: i think we got your point. mark halperin? guest: we knew that one of the challenges about writing a book about politics these days is that a lot of the discourse through the media and directly has become a very partisan. we tried to write a book that is not partisan. i am confident we did. there is stuff that was not ever

reported not just twhat the calleri] suggested by democrats, but about republicans. we are heartened that the book has received praise from people on the left and right. sean hannity said some very nice things about the book, as did ed schultz. we reported everything that we could find that we thought was germane to telling this story about both parties, candidates in both parties, without fear or favor and with an eye towards history and eliminating what happened, not covering things up. there has been a concern -- why wasn't this stuff reported in real time? people are not going to be forthcoming the way they were with us in the heat of the campaign. there are too busy and there is too much at stake. we went to people right after the nomination fights and the general election when their memories were fresh but they were willing to cooperate, they understood the project and its importance, we hope, for history. second, it is hard to piece this stuff together if you don't have the time, as we did come over a

long period of time, long interviews, able to sit down and sift through the stuff and pieced together to the realities of daily journalism, particularly these days with the internet and cable -- there is no way to do that. you have to do it as more of the historical work. host: have you heard from your sources and gotten a reaction from your sources, without specifically saying they are? guest: we have. we talked to a lot of people for the book did most of these people are people who have had very long relationships with politics. we have been covering politics for 20 years each. the relationship we have with those sources of the basis on which the book was built. if we had not had such a strong relationships with the sources, we cannot have done what we did. we have been heartened by their response, which has been uniformly positive. people ought said many notes of congratulation about the book.

-- people have sent many notes of congratulation about the book. we have heard from an awful lot of people and they feel that we have gotten the story right and got it in a way that they think is fair, accurate, and good for history in the sense that we captured things about the campaign and how these people live to the campaign and how it changed them and how their strengths and weaknesses affected the way in which they waged a campaign that are important for people who are going to be looking back at his campaign for many years to come to understand what actually happened. host: we go back to georgia and amy on the independents' line. caller: high. sorry about that. you know, i am an independent. i used to be a democrat, and with this past election with barack obama came around, i ended up dropping apart completely -- dropping of the party completely. but i was looking for at the time was a candidate that would really represent the country

well. i know for a fact that the fact that the media was there boosting obama of it like the way they did bush, which they actually did do, seems to be the game plan for me is whoever the media choose is to be the next president is going to be the next president. it is very unfortunate, because i did listen to barack obama a few times, some of the speeches that he set about changing things and washington, but yet he was a supporter of mayor richard daley, witches, as far as i'm concerned, being from illinois come -- which is, as far as i'm concerned, being from illinois, one of the biggest perks in politics but -- it was the biggest crooks in politics. what makes you think you change anything in washington? he has not. guest: the role of the media in

presidential elections is obviously a huge. one of the things most interesting in reporting on the campaign is the fact that all the campaigns feel that the media was biased against them. they all feel, as the caller says, that they look at the power of media and that they feel it pleasant outsized role and is somehow unfair to them. host: even president obama's campaign felt that way? guest: i think mark and i would agree that obama got a very favorable coverage and the campaign did not disputable. but they felt that on things like reverend wright that there were subjected to as tough and media scrutiny as any candidate in history, and things for which they were hit, like the tony rezko relationship, that those were not germane. they felt that the media was focused on trivialities and things that were non-stories, rather them what the candidate wanted to say about health care

policy and economic policy. it is a perennial complaint, and as far as i can see, the media is an equal opportunity in the is an equal opportunity in the kinds of readers that puts it does not surprise me people feel as though the media chooses sides, but it is a topic i do not think is going to go away, because our culture is more partisan. host: let's go to the democratic line. caller: good morning. a couple stings. one is i have seen you on other shows. -- a couple of things. one is i have seen you on other shows. the country seems to be in the state of dissonance. barack obama is the incompetent, unqualified to be president. john mccain, the longtime

politician with experience, and based upon what you have said, to meet the reverse is true. -- to me, the reverse is true. barack obama is going to be a very savvy politician and very well-prepared, understand the issues, yet all the buzz right now is about sarah palin, and her vocabulary is mostly monosyllabic, and i have not heard her say anything of substance in terms of public policy from the time she started running until now, so aren't you amazed the country is so is enamored with her, who lacks intellectual curiosity? she lacks depth, and she is mostly vacuous and vapid.

>> i am a big fan of mons logic, so i have to disagree that is a problem -- with monosyllabic, so i have to disagree with that problem. there are millions of americans who see it his way, but there are millions who think barack obama was a fraud as a candidate, and i think part of what we tried to do was to rise above what was to become the dominant feature of our political discourse. it dominant feature of political discourse, and to say i have a point of view about the world and i hit the democrats or eight republicans and anything i -- i hate to the democrats or hate republicans and anything i say or write will reinforce that. we wanted to write about this incredibly exciting campaign with bigger-than-life characters and not make a partisan book. as i've said before, we have had a very positive feedback from the left and right, people

saying to us, "i may disagree with barack obama's policies, but i was glad to read how he really experienced the campaign and get inside what is real life was really like." same with sarah palin. that is the kind of book we set out to write will n -- set out to right. i hope it has the potential benefit -- the country has become too partisan and it is not good for politics or the future of the country. we hope that people think about politics and a different way, or about the drama and -- more about the trauma and trying to drain it from the pure partisan ship. host: on the mccain approached the campaign -- "who ever was listening, that was the campaign. the rest was noise.

guest: it is a very early part of the book, talking about how of the book, talking about how mccain in the early pla it was talking about how in the early planning phase you have an operation in which most people look back to when he ran as a renegade and an outsider, and they say, we got crushed in 2000. renegade, outsider campaign, and they lost. they said, "we should build on the bush model, raise a ton of money, have a huge operation across the country, the formidable and scare everybody else away." a problem with that is that mccain is psychologically well- suited to that kind of campaign, and as the organization built itself that way, his attitude was, why do i need all this? he did not want to make fund- raising calls and get into the race as soon as they wanted him

to get into the race. we have seen from the book with a say, "we are the front runner and we have to act like the front runner and cannot act like the kind person you are naturally," which is a maverick, to use his favorite term. at the kind of thing they aspired to build for him and the kind of thing that mccain was comfortable doing it turned out to be the immolation of his campaign bu. for the first six months, the campaign was broke, he was lagging in the polls, he was miserable, he was firing his top staff, and the meltdown, which nearly killed him politically if not personally, is about that mismatch. he is strongest in the book once he gets rid of all these people. you see him emerge when everybody in politics but he was dead -- everybody in politics thought he was dead, and mccann was actually past year.

he was running, metaphorically speaking, -- mccai noten -- çmccain was actually happier. he was running, metaphorically speaking, in a beat-up car. the mismatch between him and a bomb in terms of organization, financed, muscular strength -- and no bomb in terms of organization, finance, was to list a --, him and obama in terms of organization, finance, strength -- this is why in some sense the personal, the stuff about the high human drama of the campaign, it actually matters enormously, because it tells you enormously about john mccain's political fortunes. you cannotç understand that without understanding is psychology and how he looked at the heart and, of politics. -- art and combat of politics.

guest: greta, can i say one thing? we are honored and pleased by the amount of attention the book has received. this is literally the first time we've had a chance to discuss this topic, an extraordinarily important part of the 2008 campaign. for people who have seen some of the book and say, i know everything about the book already, it would love to " the thing about the use of airplane tickets, because it defines a huge part of the mentality of the republican nominee i think some people have the impression that they have learned everything that is in the book. we think there is more in the book that people would be interested in. host: nancy on the republican line. caller: when president obama ran, he was more to the center of the democratic party. that is what i voted for. i voted for obama because i thought he was more to the center of the democratic party,

not to the left. he has since become more of left then center. that has made me very disheartened. i have turned from democrat to republican and i will start voting republican and i am going to vote more for the people who are my values and my type of ideas about this country and how it should be run. i think our country is out of whack. we are spending too much, the deficit is too high, there is too many people unemployed. i think obama is not concentrating on what the real problems are in this country. he is concentrating on his ideas. guest: will was the name of that color -- what was the name of that caller? host: nancy.

guest: i would call her nancy, a.k.a. david axelrod's worst nightmare. this the type of voters thought they have to worry about. he has done the thing that is the most dangerous for any politician, lost control of a large segment of the population with his public image, how he is being perceived t. during the campaign, he was very successful at what george bush did, being all things to all people. healthcare is a great example. what has moved through congress -- there are policy differences that are not insignificant, but the best of it, the scope of it, it is very similar to what he ran on. people should not be surprised that on a range of issues, he is more liberal. at the same time, one of the gifts barack obama has had since

he entered public life is to speak as a unifying figure, to give people the sense that he works across the aisle and solves problems in a bipartisan way. that, as it has turned out, partly by choice and partly by circumstances, with the economic crisis in particular, has led to governing in a moreç partisan y that i thought he would do and i think that he intended the result is to alienate colors and voters and citizens like that. part of the challenge he faces now is to finish this health care bill, defined as a very liberal think, rightly or not, and move on to an agenda that addresses jobs and deficit reduction. the state of the union and the budget are opportunities, the white house hopes, to win over callers like that. host: the state of the union will be wednesday, january 27. steve on the independent-mi line. caller: 1 said the post, he took

a called earlier -- you took a call earlier challenging your bias and saying you should be fired. we should actually look at the bias -- to get to the point, we have become so divisive in this country. i think hillary clinton has just shown herself to be a gracious loser, obviously, and the campaign, but also, what a hard- working woman. you look at her, and she's just nose to the grindstone, "i am the secretary of state and i will do the best job i can possibly do for our country, regardless of party." i think during the campaign, obama was such a wonderful speaker, is such a wonderful that he was able to carry the election without a lot of

substance. i am a supporter of his, but at the same time, you've got to govern, not just be elected. host: the background on hillary clinton during the campaign. guest: we in the book talk about how the hillary and obama relationship is a love story, which is counterintuitive for people. one of the things that mark and i were surprised to learn is how much of a fan hillary clinton was to barack obama before the campaign did she hosted a fund-raiser for his senate campaign, and she talked very admiring look about him, saying that there is a superstar in chicago, the kind of candidate that she and her husband always wanted to support in the the grand part, very intelligent african- american who had a future and the party. when he came to washington, he seeks her out, six her counsel, already sort of a superstar

because of the speech at the convention, and that sort of a bond. she sees him as a potential mentee and he sees her as a potential mentor obviously, a huge amount of conflict and bitterness and then unfolded when they ended at head-to-head in the democratic nomination fight. but in the end, after all for bitterness over how the race turned out and all of her anger, which is documented in the book in a lot of a vivid detail, the extraordinary series of events that lead her to eventually accept the job of secretary of state -- we have at the end of the book, and that is rather incredible coming together -- there is a rather incredible coming together with the late-night phone call and everybody in her life is trying to get her to take the top. her husband thinks it would be great for, rahm emanuel, joe

biden, all lobbies for to take the job. she finally called him to decide that they will not -- that she will not take the top, and had this incredible late-night phone call where she tells him why she does not want the job and he accept ththat those are all good reasons -- she is burdened with debt, she is tired and wants to go home -- he understands all that, but he says, "i need you to take this job. with the economic crisis will be a huge part of my first term might need someone who understands foreign policy whose hand i do not have to hold, and i need you and the country needs you." after everything with this at the arc of their relationship, it is an extraordinary moment. the moment she admits her husband might be a problem, something she never did in the campaign -- anything bill clinton did something considered politically detrimental, and she

defends him. she never takes any other side, totally loyal to her husband. now she is not saying not disloyal, but admitting to barack obama that there is a political vulnerability with her husband . barack obama does not express that he needs anyone did, he is the maximally self-sufficient politician. he turns to her and in its in some ways that he needs her. it is the first bond, the relationship of trust where they relationship of trust where they can work togethe she wakes up and besides she is going to take the job. i think in the first year of his term, she has demonstrated all the things that are best about hillary clinton. she has been an incredibly valuable adviser. she has worked incredibly hard representing america around the world, and by all indications, their relationship is as solid

as any relationship. they are on incredibly good terms. i think it speaks well for her patriotism, her devotion to the country, and her ability to put past bitterness aside for a higher calling. host: the line for democrats. good morning. caller: what kind of an impact you think this will have four people running against and for people who want to work for them when it seems like -- i do not understand why these people say some of the things they say about the candidates. i think it would be hard to get anybody to work with you. it would be so hard for the candidates. you have to be so careful what they should say and do in private, and the question is, what kind of an impact you think the book will have?

thank you. >> before you answer that, howard kurtz wrote yesterday, perhaps president obama's character is unusually consistent, but it may affect the -- reflects the -- i want to add that to her comments. >> there is a lot there. as john said earlier, almost every case, we were dealing not with strangers. we were dealing with people we had a positive, strong working relationship with over decades, so in that process, we explained in great detail what we were doing. the terms on which we were speaking. history is important. one of the things we learned, at times to our panic, is that as time passes, people's memories don't work.

there is oral history here that if we had not stepped in and done at these interviews when we did them, in what it would have been lost. people have said -- howard kurtz,'s piece and others -- that we rely on people with axes to grind. i have to tell you -- john mayfield of a -- i could john -- upjohn may feel differently -- i can think of five that most or people were trying to spin the story but they cooperated with us to realize that this was an important moment in american history. that process revealed a lot of stories that we were able, over time, to merge together. there is not a single " controversial" story line in the book that we based on people exclusively who had an ax to grind to we always went to

supporters, people more supportive to a candidate or a spouse, and asked what you think there were almost no instances where the merging of those accounts from two sides required judgments. the stories line up. guest: it i want to add something to the quotation you read. the relationship between the public image and a private reality. i think that is actually true. in many cases, there is a wide divergence between public image and private reality. the story of john and elizabeth edwards is the most dramatic and the book, where the gap between what the public saw and wanted to see and how they were in private was cats make -- was chasmic. the gap between barack obama's public image and private reality was of all the candidates than ever was.

the spent very little time in the above -- a campaign was a -- all the candidates the narrowest. they spent very little time in the campaign trying to manage him. the obama campaign was able to focus to a large extent on getting done what needed to get done. there was not as large a gap between the two. it as i talked before about race example, there were times where the public image was not going on behind the scenes, but an important part of why he was successful and the can and was the fact that the gap was narrower. guest: we don't have a very much about barack obama that is less flattering. i would urge people to read the book, and there are a number of

scenes worked there was crisis, questions about whether the strategy was working. in one prominent instance, you see barack obama saying that we will stay the course, that we chose this strategy and is the right thing. there is another instance later in the book where he decides that he is not getting enough advice on a broader circle of people. one of the things that we report about in the book is this group of the three men, david axelrod, robert gibbs, and david plouffe , who almost a stranglehold on the advice -- who have almost a stranglehold on the advice that is to barack obama. other people, including michelle obama, would occasionally say when things were going badly that there needs to be a broader circle of advisers. there is a stage late in the process when it is clear that barack obama will probably be hillary clinton but will lead into the general election, where he decides to change course and

he has a conference call that is not run by one of the three suits but i needed done, who goes on to be department -- but anita dunn, who goes on to be the communications director. some said that the portrait is written by the winners so it is not as full as others. host: when he decides to bring anita dunn into the fold, the strategy she takes up running his fund -- the exchange there, the strategy she comes up with it for e-mail addresses. guest: in the early 2006, the 2005 period, there was a pac called hope fund, and obama

interviewed and eventually hired anita dun to run that pac. even when he was still a candidate for the senate in 2004, he was able to raise money for democratic senators. it was clear that he was going to when in a landslide, and he was doing fund-raising events for tom national and other senators. he was an incredible fundraising -- fund-raising events for tom daschle and other senators. he was an incredible fundraising source. he would turn out huge crowds. we knew that obama was traveling around and raising money, but i don't think until we wrote the book that we had a clear sense. we talked to people like claire mccaskill who would tell stories about obama campaign for her in 2006 and when they came to st. louis, not only did they have to have the fundraiser for the 2000

were 3000 people, but it would need to get a separate room for 15,000 people, because everybody wanted to see this guy. his fund-raising ability was at the core of why, as we talk about the democratic establishment being behind him, that was part of the political appeal, part of the wheat they demonstrated that he could be a serious candidate. anita dunn, in some sense, along with david plouffe, initiating a similar strategy for deval patrick in massachusetts, started to think about how this could be capitalized on to build the grass-roots army. when people came to obama events, it would ask for e-mail addresses, and it was the beginning of building the database for hope fund, and it became the core of what became the mass of a fund-raising machine. as they used the internet in i totally novel way to build this

fundraising machine unprecedented in the history of american politics. anita dunn and the hope fund with the seeds of that development that made obama credible and give them a huge advantage going against hillary clinton and john mccain. host: marie on the republican line. caller: i get a kick out of the left attacking their opponents. they call them a dime if they see a thread. -- call them dumb if they see a threat and with that sarah palin -- left comedians like joy behar and bill maher attacker all the time did she had more experience than barack obama. iit is how they try to be little their opponents.

they say that europe is this or that. europe is made up of different countries with their own culture. switzerland is not part of the eu -- host: okay, we will leave it there. let me pick up one thing she said about sarah palin and the coverage. sarah palin, from your reporting, was consumed with how she was being pursued in -- how she was being perceived in alaska during the election. guest: she was never very much involved in national politics. very few in the national political or media life had dealings with sarah palin. she was new. we talked to these national operatives in the mccain campaign and other people around sarah palin who to this day are the only people we know who have had exposure to her behind-the-

scenes to see what she is like when she is not on tv or giving a speech. they met with sarah palin, two of mccain's advisers, mark salter and steve schmidt. they did not know her bridge was a stranger to them. one of things they discussed with her late in the meeting was the importance of her understanding that even though she would remain the sitting governor of alaska, she needed to understand her focus needed to be on the the national campaign. she was basically an appendage of the campaign and would not get back to alaska until there -- unless there was some sort of natural disaster, and she did not to be focused on her home state needs but on the national ticket. on the point of view of the kaine staff, she did not of a -- up to that from the point -- from the point of view of the

mccain is that, she did not live up to that. there were concerned that there was an absence of mccain-palin and yard signs in alaska. it is spent the time complaining to a -- the campaign they spent -- they spent atime complaining that there was not enough of an effort in alaska. she was not being allowed to talk to local reporters, and like a lot of governors, she would give out hurt mobile or two local reporters -- her mobile phone number to local reporters. that ended when she was put on the national ticket. from the mccain campaign's point of view, there was no time for that, and she said she understood that before she was put on the ticket. that was one of many causes of tension between the palins and

the mccain staff. host: david, next caller. caller: on my part i am identified as no party affiliation. i always -- when the politician preaches the corrupt year, -- when the politicians it reaches the crop year, i will not vote for them. with clinton into york -- if i was a resident of new york, i would not have voted for her, because she moved in. and many voters in southwest florida thought they were voting for his father and they were very upset that they had voted for his son. i was extremely upset, being a disabled veteran, 1 george w. bush --

host: let me jump in here, because we're running out of time. what is your question or comment? guest: this is a question i have recently started asking my friends about voter fraud. which of the three largest cities in the u.s. have a reputation, whether it is deserved or not, for having corrupt elections? host: i am not sureç of this cn answer that we want to take a stab at it? guest: never be wrong picking cities in louisiana and new cities in louisiana and new jersey. he says, deep background means you can describe someone's thinking or reconstruct verbatim dialogue when writing about events. as an author who has used that technique, i do not believe it entitles you to directly quote

what someone has said to you. he is referring to what harry reid said in private about barack obama. >> in our authors note, we referred to the notion, and we say in a shorthand way what that meant. the authors note is not complete in the sense that it did not have a thorough description of all of the conversation, which we had with every source we talked to. we would talk in great detail about how the interview we were about to conduct would be used in the book. there was no actual script, but there may well have been. this is what we can use. this is what we cannot use. this is how it is going to work. i can say there is no case when

the way we explain what we were going to do and we did not leave it -- did not live up to that agreement. i think it is important that people understand that it is not a concept etched in stone. . every journalist has rules of the road. host: you don't think that concrete come on-the-record -- guest: with new ones, you can describe different things. we did not violate the agreement with anybody that we made for the book. unlike a lot of exchanges and washington and journalism generally, between reporters and sources, with the terms are not defined but there is assumed to be commonality, or they are defined on the fly, we have meticulously and carefully in every exchange we had a free interview we did went through the project, the terms we are discussing, and we did not violate those terms for any

person to talk to a to the book. host: melvin on the democrats' line. caller: i have more of a comment caller: i have more of a comment and couple of issues. there are people saying that barack obama is not living up to his campaign promises. but my main point -- you heard a lot of people talk about concern about deficit spending. i don't think they realize that when ronald reagan took office in 1980, the deficit was $980 billion. one him and george bush sr. left office, it was ordered $5 trillion. clinton left a surplus -- it was $405 trillion. clinton left a surplus, and the deficit was $10.90 trillion when obama took over. where democrats get all the blame for the spending when it is actually republicans who created all this deficit?

the democrats never seem to address that issue, and they continue to be demonized for the spending, and republicans used fiscal conservatives -- host: at some of this is playing out, what he is getting at, in the special elections in messages, about democrats' big spenders -- special election in massachusetts, about democrats being spenders and raising taxes. i am wondering if you could compare your debts from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers -- your notes from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers that she had, and reports this morning that hillary clinton's staff for new england is helping to run martha coakley's campaign. guest: mark would know more about this. we have been so busy with this book that i don't know the details of this spirit is the

case that republicans have historically and traditionally and successfully in many cases portrayed the democrats as a big spending party. they have been are successful in doing that and in massachusetts it has been playing out where you have martha coakley is not getting the kind of support from the democratic base that she would expect. much more importantly, she is having a very hard time getting a number of independent voters that she would need, who are accessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. -- obsessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. guest: one of the most serious moments in the book is clinton's attempt to get teddy kennedy to endorse hillary over barack obama, and the frustration and anger that both clintons felt. they had gone sailing with him. president clinton would tell

people how angry and frustrated he was that he had done so much for the kennedy family as president and they were drifting towards obama. hillary and bill clinton have incredible political support in massachusetts, and one of the satisfying moments for them on super tuesday was despite the fact that senator kennedy had endorsed barack obama, hillary was able to win massachusetts. some of her field operatives in massachusetts and new hampshire are now, as i understand, working for the democratic nominee there. they probably should have been there a little sooner. most people watching the race closely believe that their involvement is being done at the last minute, very quickly, and may be too little, too late, if i may use a cliche on c-span. host: steve on the republican line. caller: i'm wondering if you could talk about mitt romney, the conflict between his public image and private conduct. and also mike huckabee. thanks. guest: for a variety of reasons,

we did not spend as much time on the republican race, because it lacked the drama. but there are some things on it romney could to the specific question, there is one of very striking example of the striking public image and private reality and the kiss of romney. mitt romney's public image, if anything, was defined as a competent ceo character. he was an arch catalyst and had run -- arch-capitalist and had run bain capital. he could run government like running a board room. throughout our coverage in the book of romney was the fact that the staff was totally frustrated that he was totally indecisive. he could not decide on something as elemental as picking a campaign slogan. they never came up with a campaign slogan. the consultant side of him

actually dominated in some ways. he would ask for more and more input and constantly take more and more time and wanted more and more data, and the deluge of data that he sought actually cut paralyzed and 34 people around him, -- actually kind of paralyzed him. for people around him, the worse died. -- they were stunned. we have details of how much john mccain, how much mike huckabee and others disliked commit money to he was sort of a preening -- this like to make romney. he was sort of eigha preening prima donna. they would malkin behind his back, and that he would rocked -- would mock him behind his back, and he would walk into the room and it would be kind of a hushed.

host: could you tell us about the difference between rudy giuliani on the campaign trail and in private? guest: the book is about politics and the sense that we write about presidential candidates and their spouses, but our goal was to write about the personalities and the high human drama. we knew all the time that we had an interesting set of characters. pretty giuliani is the seventh--- we knew we had an interesting set of characters went rudy giuliani was the seventh-the most interesting candidate. a clean up new york city and stood up to terrorists after 9/11. but on the campaign trail, he was not a tiger, but a pussycat. when he was shown at negative ads point out against him, he would laugh at them and said that all of those were silly. in debates, when he was challenged by opponents, he

laughed. he never showed the toughness and hunger to win. rinceau counter to his image. -- it ran so counter to his image. his inability to define himself and reinforce his greatest strengths, the image of being tough, was a big part of his downfall. the person who knew him best in the old, was john mccain. they had been friends since back when rudy giuliani was mayor. when mccain was starting to fall, he was never worried about rudy giuliani. he said rudi was rudy. >> on tomorrow morning's

"washington journal," a special recap of the massachusetts race. we will also talk with an editor who was been keeping track of obama is campaign promises. and the french ambassador discusses france's relief work in haiti. coming up on c-span, commentator charles krauthammer does best is president obama's foreign policy. and then election night speeches from candidate to in massachusetts, and later, the inauguration ceremony for chris christy. abigail adams had to write john

adams to remember the ladies we creating a new government. this weekend, the intimate lives of the founding fathers. thomas fleming profiles the women who played a special part in creating our country. part of this weekend's booktv on c-span. 2 >> next week, president obama delivers his first day of the union address to congress, laying out the future for the country and his plan to deal with unemployment, health care, and the wars in iraq and afghanistan. the state of the union address next wednesday, january 27, at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c- span. >> conservative columnist charles krauthammer was at the heritage foundation today to talk about the obama administration's forum policy. he talked of which he touched on issues like nuclear proliferation and israel, among others.

this is 50 minutes. >> i am the vice-president of the heritage foundation. i like to welcome all of you to the heritage foundation and a special welcome to those joining us on line with its very special event, our sixth margaret thatcher freedom lecture. we created the series in 2006. we wanted to wait not only to honor lady thatcher but to give greater clarity and attention to the principles and policies that undergird freedom itself, not only in the united states, but around the world. but the first lecture, we ask a former soviet dissident to answer, is freedom for everyone? he did so eloquently, establishing a standard for this lecture series that are other speakers have match. we have heard about economic freedom, religious freedom, john

bolten on whether the united nations advances the cause of freedom, and the important relationship between security and freedom. advancing freedom is a major goal of the heritage foundation and an important element of all the work that we do here. in fact, tomorrow we were released in hong kong and in washington the 16th edition of the index of economic freedom. i think there is big, bad news in the index score for freedom in the united states. our speaker today as dr. charles krauthammer, whose remarks today main st. president tomorrow. he described president obama first year in office as the year of living recklessly. -- fecklessly. most of us now that he writes an

internationally syndicated column for the "washington post." last note -- less now is that he was a harbor-educated doctor. in 1978, he decided to leave medical practice when he came to washington right for the "new republic." he became a speech writer for walter mondale, and in 1985 he began writing a column for the "washington post," which we have enjoyed every week cents. in addition to his weekly column, he appends a monthly as a ford "time magazine." he is a frequent commentator on television and popular public speaker. over the years, his commentary has received many honors including a pulitzer prize in 1987. his awards and accused the national magazine award for essays and criticism, and an award for excellence in opinion

journalism. in 2006, but that at times named him most influential commentator in america. and there were definitely on to something. it is remarkable how much charles krauthammer has contributed to the lexicon of liberty. launceston phrases like the reagan doctrine, the moment of u.s. dominance, and democratic realism to some of his view of international relations since september 11. many of us have read his comments -- columns and saying, yes, that is exactly right. that's because his writings are incisive and his thinking so clear that it crystallizes our own thoughts perfectly. charles krauthammer is not just the commentator. more than any other journalist today, he is a maker of " ah,

ha" moments. without his commitment to the truth, we would be poor in thought and less free. thank you, charles, for honoring us today with your thoughts with the sixth annual margaret thatcher ledger. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome charles krauthammer. >> thank you. thank you very much. they give that kind introduction. when i hear my checkered past recalled, i really should respond, especially when working work monday. heidi go from montreal to fox news? the answer is easy. i was young once. -- out you go from mondale --

how do you go from mondale to fox is? the answer is easy. i was young once. of the and not -- but the logical conundrum that has compounded the legend for centuries. six years ago when i was speaking of my subject for this address, obama was halfway on his trajectory downward from demand it to mortality. but now that we have arrived at the last day of his first year, arrived in the point where the magic has worn off and the charisma has gone cold, were massachusetts, the bluest of the blue states, is even thinking of electing an obscure republican to u.s. senate seat traditionally reserved for the kennedy family and its functionaries where the obama approval rating is at 46% and

where his disapproval rating is the highest ever a year after his presidential election, there is no real reason to trace his remarkable decline. instead of talking about where his domestic agenda had brought him, i propose to speak about where his foreign-policy agenda has brought us. after a year of fairly steady criticism from the right, the obama farm policy received a second look, always above rather favorable consideration, after his speech in oslo accepting the nobel peace prize, in which he acknowledged the existence of evil, the importance of america in sustaining peace, and the occasional necessity of waging war. but this led to some enthusiastic talk about a new obama doctrine, variously

described as a christian realism, a tragic mindedness, but i hate to rain on his parade. i find it hard to join in a general softening -- in the general swooning. yes, it is good that we have a president who says that condi would not have done well against hitler. but is this a great philosophical advanced for the president of the united states? this is the kind of issue that you dispose of in your first evening ball session in the freshman dorm. passivism is a serious subject for sweet adolescence. or a way of life for certain eccentrics, who it must be noted, survived because they

live among non-eccentrics who reject pacifism and fight to keep them alive and free. and, guess, obama did offer a defense of war, but remember he had just announced at 30,000 troop deployment in afghanistan, and war that was a legacy obligation he had inherited, and that he himself had declared a bite on national interest. and none the less he sell agonized about providing his generals with an adequate troop level that it took three months of public rustling with both his conscience and his vice- president before he came to that decision. what else can the leader of any serious nation to but that fanned the necessity of war? how can a man to ran as

commander-in-chief do otherwise? what leader of a serious nation even raises pacifism as the serious farm policy issue? indeed, when a president's recognition of the ball or rejection of passivism jumps out at us as something startling a novel, tells us much, not of good, but the baseline in which he is operating, though wall 8 internationalism he has been operating under during its first year in office. and after this brief foray into the obvious, defending the nasa says -- the necessity of war and defending america's role in protecting the peace, obama felt compelled nonetheless to spend all second half of his nobel address returning to the liberal internationalist theme that had garnered him back to was prize in the first place from that

overdress, underemployed jury who gave him the prize. and what is the baseline? what is the essence of the obama farm policy? there are many places they can be found in the tigris speech, in other legs of the apology to work, but the essence was succinctly expressed by him in his address to the un assembly, in which he laid out what animates the international system. "where power is no longer a zero sum game, no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. no world order elevates one nation or group about another, and alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages of a long gone cold war made no sense in an

interconnected world." where does one begin? power is no longer a zero sum game? tell that to the demonstrators in the streets of tehran, tell that to the tamil tigers were the newly liberated nations of the baltic states. no nation should try to dominate another? well, perhaps. but that as merely adolescent utopianism, where the struggle for domination is the very essence of international life. no nation can dominate another? this is simple nonsense. how can a man of such high intelligence, the president of the united states, even allow himself to utter these words? but most disturbing is what he called the cleavages of the long gone cold war. the obsolete and senses.

these were actually the dividing line between the free and the unfree, between democratic and communists, between the blast and the evil empire that had stamped out the face of freedom and half of europe and an archipelago of colonies from cuba to vietnam to nicaragua. this was no accidental dividing line. yet in place of this so long -- so called cleavage, obama was to bring about a new 20 fist -- 21st century world of understanding and accommodation, and for that the u.s. is to be the healer, a moral example led by a man floating above it all, a fellow citizen of the world as obama called himself in berlin. indeed, it was in berlin in that remarkably bizarre setting that candidate obama offered the best

insight into how he sees the world, when he asserted that the berlin wall had come down because "there is no challenge to a great for a world that stands as one." as one? if anything, the world stood as two. but those that for a decade strolled -- strobe relentlessly to bring both wall down, and those beds to growth to maintain it, indeed the ones that put it up in the first place. the wall came down, and not because of a kumbayah coming together of nations, but because the united states acting all along but with only a few allies, had a very -- at a very high cost in korea and vietnam, and one cold war that carried the constant threat on nuclear

annihilation, persisted in maintaining the five relentlessly to contain and ultimately to destroy the soviet empire. only someone had actually think that the cold war was won by some common exertion of common humanity in the service of, and universal norms could actually believe that these additional forces hold the key to security and peace in the world today. but obama apparently does. at heart of this internationalist fantasy is the very notion that i community and nation with its common norms on ultimately determines the course of history. common norms? the taliban and ice have very different visions of the good. so do for example the arabs and

the northern sudan and the christian and the sudanese who live in the south and have been in perpetual civil war of allow several decades, to say nothing of the north and south in this country in the 1860's. even if people say -- share the same aspirations, commonality does not necessarily ensued. resources and lander not infinite. people strive to gain what others have. this is all totally elementary. classes of values in the struggle for primacy constitute a constant in human history, and they account for the other constant, conflict and war. and yet against all of this, the center of a bomb was world is what obsessively calls the international community. he calls on it to stand up to north korea. to restrain iran is neutral --

nuclear ambitions. to bring about his own dream of universal nuclear disarmament. and it is to this fancied entity to earn its approbation and support that obama offers such ostentatious demonstrations of national virtue, as he sees it, as closing guantanamo and enduring -- and ending interrogations for criminal masterminds. the idea of the international community lies at the center of the obama foreign policy. unfortunately it is a fiction. there is no such thing. different countries have a different history, geography is, necessities, and interest. they may occasionally all i ourself -- themselves an ad hoc coalitions such as the second world war or the first gulf war. but there is no natural inherent

or enduring international community. what community of interests actually exist between the united states, iran, burma, and zimbabwe? the international community as a state of nature, a hobbesian state of nature. hannity's kept in check not by a bureaucracy, not by some inculpate expression of world opinion, not by hearts and promises adorned with disingenuous signatures, but by the will and power of the great powers, and most importantly in our time, by the one superpower by the name of the united states. one highly revealing analysis of obama foreign-policy relying on leaks from inside the white house spoke about how his approach code much to his experience as a community

organizer. the idea of listening and understanding and working cooperatively and seeking comment ends. this is all well and good, but a community organizer in chicago operates within their rubric and under the protection of a very elaborate, very secure, highly regulated and central domestic civil society. what holds a civil society together is a supreme central authorities, the sanctity of contracts, and the good will, civility, and decency of its individual members. rainout likes all of these things. what keeps it from degenerating into law war against all is not central authority, not up on the security of treaties, not the best of good will among the more civilized nations. what stability we do have is due

to the overwhelming power and the detering threat of a superpower like the united states that defies -- defines international stability as a natural -- national interest. he is making ritual obeisance to its ritual manifestation. united nations, of course, its various parties, such as the u.n. human rights council, and was recently the copenhagen climate change conference, which demonstrated spectacularly the fatuousness of such international structures, eye of common purpose, a common interest,, and governance. and yet the value of these international institutions and paper agreements seems to leave no lasting impression. did we really learn nothing from the early 20th-century experience, with its repeated

and dimmed attempts to regulate the capital ships of the great powers for unable conferences? did we really learn nothing from the kellogg pact, whose signatories incidently included germany and japan? it abolished war forever. and inserted a that the u.s. secretary of state won the nobel peace prize. sound familiar? but at least they ashley sign be useless treaty. obama got it for imagined useless treaty, most notably the one he has been insisting on from prague to new york on universal nuclear disarmament.

the night it of obama can be seen in his most recent poll, the dramatic -- the most dramatic of which appeared on september 24, one day after obama speech to the general assembly, when the austin statia's late provided -- presided over the security council, the first time an american president has ever done so. at that time, unknown to the world, obama acknowledged that iran had constructed a secret nuclear uranium enrichment facility. they wanted to use the dramatic setting too stunned the world with that revelation and the last to be in a position to call for immediate powerful action. not only did obama reviews, but president sarkozy was forced to

scrap any mention of qom from his speech. obama only revealed the news a day later in his speech. why did he forgo the opportunity? because, explains bob white house, obama did not want anything at the security council meeting to get in the wake of his dream of nuclear-free world. he did not want to dilute his proposed disarmament resolution with the diversion to iran. iran is a diversion? is the most important security issue on the planet. a diversion from the fantasy of international nuclear disarmament? sarkozy was sitting at the same counsel table watching all of this, and could hardly contain themselves. with obama at the chair, he pointedly observed, "president obama has said our dream on

nuclear -- no and nuclear- weapons, and yet before our eyes, two karr trees are doing exactly the opposite." any informed the president that we live in a real world, "not a virtual world." this could teak -- this critique does not mean that we reject all treaties or all notions of community of nations. you can have transnational agreements between like-minded nations that do share norms and for whom there for these agreements are real. a commercial treaty between rule of law states such as the united states and canada, where the various agreements underline the european union, they had near the power of domestic law as does a common defense pact, such as that which told nato to get

there. but universal treaties, necessarily including allstate's, democratic and tyrannical, compliant and congenitally noncompliant, such agreements will not be adhered to by rogue states " cheap as suits their purposes, rearing -- rendering the treaty not only useless but worse than useless. for example, alleged violations of the non-proliferation treaties are referred to the iaea, a procedure that invariably leads to complacency to say nothing of endless delay, because it gives the illusion of enforcement. these kinds of agreements are almost never enforced. indeed, but one act of enforcement in recent times, the removal of the rogue regime of saddam hussein after a decade of

serial violations of security council resolutions demanding disarmament, has been so widely and universally denounced the around the world that obama has spent much of the last year apologizing for it. as for this community of nations, this does not mean that there are no such communities. margaret thatcher and ronald reagan did not lack for a sense of community, and that was the community of free nations. these communities have a reality. they have their own norms and ideals and policies, and some like nato even the security apparatus to back it up. it is precisely this kind of community of democratic nations that the margaret thatcher center for freedom so courageously an effective lead defense and supports.

it makes obama internationalism particularly troubling. as he stated that the u. n, " true universe reality involves denigrating these ideological some communities as mayor collusions based on an archaic provisions, such as those that created the cold war." he said so rather directly in his u.s. address when he said of an " no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed." but isn't that what nato is about? isn't that a group of nations claiming the exclusivity to themselves and intent on enforcing the norms in which they believe? what was the u.s. rescue of bosnia and costs about? if not nato elevating itself of

other nations and groups of people to declare that genocide would not be countenanced in the balkans, and that nato would act unilaterally even without the assent of the "international community" and expressed -- as expressed in the united nations and its security council? this homage to internationalism and denigration not only of nationalism and individual sovereign almaty -- individual sovereignty, has a very practical impact on america's actions in the world. and that impact is already being felt by friend and foe, allies and adversaries. it our ultimate aim is to earn a place as a good international citizen, we must abandon any signs of arrogance coming any act of tribal self assertion,

and began to constrict and constrain our often irresponsible power, and act as one among many. did did that, we must undertake two things. first, the expiation of past sins, and then outrage and accommodation -- out reach an accommodation. the expiation has been indulged throughout the last year. that is the apology to our for president eisenhower's role in the coup in iran, but a first use of the atomic bomb, for our own racism and treatment of americans -- native americans, were allegedly disparaging europe are not recognizing its "leading role" in the world. might that be because it has lived paris said it placed under american protection for 60 years? but i digress. -- might that be because it has lived paris sickisitically under

american protection for 60 years? but i digress. this country has delivered defenseless muslims -- muslims from their present, boston, possible, kuwait, afghanistan, in iraq under saddam hussein. and after the catharsis of confession, comes the reconciliation, the extended hand to the clenched fist. we have now had a year of this as well. what is clear is that week -- that reconciliation, the resetting of relations, starting from scratch with at the series has its consequences. -- with adversaries has its

consequences. this did not arrive out of nowhere. they have their roots in a clash of interests and values, and we have allies in these classes. that is why starting the world a new, as obama imagined he does in almost everything, pressing the reset button all over the world has consequences, not least of which is among our allies. for example, resetting relations with russia and caving in on missile defense, the man to be trained, the czech republic and poland, which had taken risks and joining us in this venture. man once again leaving them wondering about american reliability and about an hour on -- about our own and bear on post-cold war dependence, and

whether they were returning to the limbo of their sovereignty being constrained by the detente of moscow. he spent days in bowel -- bowling and scraping in china, without so much as a gesture in china on behalf of human rights, and insisting on elevating china gratuitously to near superpower status. at one point in the visit, obama even suggested a chinese interest in stability in the indian subcontinent, as a gesture and not well received in india -- part of a pattern of giving short shrift to india, china is a regional rival and our natural ally in the region, with a common language, a common tradition, a common democracy, and a common enemy and radical islam. the indians had to settle for

the consolation prize of all white house state dinner and almost meeting the saudis. -- a sell-off pethe salahis. also the comedy of errors and honduras, where obama reflexively supported by hugo chavez won a be an ally, while opposing the actions of nearly every constitutional institution in a country which had acted to dispose -- opposed a would be dictator according to the honduran constitution. quite shockingly, lebanon's recent demonstrations of fealty to syria -- syria had been

ostracized by the bush a administration for its role in assassinations, and is now enjoying her representative posh mont -- a reconciliation. the lebanese know how to read the wind direction. hence the recent astonishing a visit of a lebanese president to damascus to bend an aide to president assad, the man he knows what's behind the murder of his own father. but who is now bell once again rising regional power, as the obama administration resets relations with lebanon's syrian overlord. the combination of enemies is not a free lunch. it has its price.

and finally piece of resistance of this policy of expensive accommodation. iran, where obama has consistently upheld the legitimacy of the the-clerical regime, insisting on maintaining good relations with it, and has been slow and often silent in support of the democratic demonstrators in the streets. the basic critique of this farm policy is not just that it is not even -- of this foreign policy is that it is not just ninaive but that worst of all it has been a failure. we chose russia over eastern europe, and what did we get in return? cooperation with iran? nothing. and from china, we received

explicit statements that they will oppose any sanctions on iran in the security council. what have we gotten for our pressure on israel? the complete breakdown in negotiations. for 16 years the palestinians had negotiated with israel without a settlement freeze. until obama arrived to reinvent the world. the arabs now refuse any negotiation because they prefer logically to sit back and let the united states extract unilateral concessions from israel. this is only the beginning. in his first year, we have only begun to see the fruits of obama's internationalism. but the signs are unmistakable. should this policy continued for the next three years, let alone for the next seven, it will have profound consequences throughout the world. it would constitute a gradual american retreat.

again, with the possible exception of afghanistan, although obama has pointedly insisted that within 18 months, the retreat from their begins as well, and it will have inexorable consequences easily and succinctly stated. when erstwhile allies see the american umbrella beginning to be withdrawn, they will begin to accommodate themselves to those countries we were protecting them from. so obvious are these consequences of the disconnect between the real world and what the president of france has called obama is a virtual world, that it is hard for me to believe that the current policies can continue indefinitely. because at some point, empirical reality must intervene. the reality of the iran said

intransigence and aggressive as, tehran's pursuit of its own national, regional, and international interests, of russia's determination to regain its net gear abroad, the palestinian's refusal of accepting any kind of reasonable argument, several of which already offered by israel, but chavez's designs on countries in latin america. maybe i am wrong. perhaps this type of illusionary foreign policy can continue. perhaps he will be impervious to empirical evidence. in this case, all these accommodations, but weakening of alliances, the strengthening of centers of adversarial power in moscow, beijing, caracas,

pteron, and elsewhere will continue apace until some cataclysm wakes us up. such are the wages of living in a virtual world. i pray we leave it soon. thank you very much. >> thank you very much a that excellent speech. you managed to cover every issue i was hoping that you attend. just when i thought we are running out of time, you hit the right points. we have some time for discussion

and questions for charles. we have a microphone over hill. if you would like to ask a question, please raise your hand and ask for the microphone and wit -- and it would be helpful if you could identify yourself. >> chris from the all americans coalition. thank you very much for coming today and for all that you do. i was wondering if you could expand your thoughts a little bit more on u.s. foreign policy in the western hemisphere, particularly with hugo chavez, and the consequences of obama policies and the next three to seven years, if that's the case. >> i think the honduras escapade was quite damaging. the instinctive calling it a coup without even considering what the conditions had been with a constitutional realities inside of honduras, it was a demonstration.

in the end, they elect out because -- a lot out -- they lucked out because the would-be dictator had so little support, we should have accepted it at the beginning as the clear solution. that is what sends a signal about where we stand. i think there was some improvement toward the end. it was the first time where i think empirical evidence actually intervened over time, and there was a maturation, if i can say, but at least the wrongheadedness decreased rather slowly but effectively over time. that, i think, was the first

example. the other an interesting is how the obama administration will subordinate domestic concerns over pressing international concerns. one example is the free trade agreement of columbia. it is a classic example of a country overcome enormous obstacles in the name of freedom. it is doing it with great success against a neighbor had a series in chavez who is intent on damaging it. and here is a way in which we can express our support. but symbolically and materially , but it is being held up because of the democrats -- the influence wielded over the democratic party by a labor unions. it is neglected and an active

state. i am not sure that the crises are going to come in this hemisphere. that is why i think it is on a lower scale of urgency, although i think it is wrong headed. but the internal problems that shot as has will probably restrain him but it will not be the united states and it isn't ministration. -- but the internal problems that chavez as will probably restrain him, but it will not be the united states under this administration. >> thank you for your interesting lecture. my question is growing up in the one the bush regime, we looked upon reagan's movement to to dismantle or to bring down the berlin wall as something extremely helpful and realistic -- and unrealistic at times. i watched the celebrations of

the berlin wall dismantling, no mention of ronald reagan or margaret thatcher or any other effort except communist gorbachev. do you see a problem in rewriting the history and why there has not been any resistance on our part to counter attack the efforts to rewrite what took place in the 1980's? >> i think that that is a very telling comment that you made. and it was a very telling incident did the president of the united states removes himself to copenhagen to bring home the chicago olympics. he removes himself to compensate for climate change. he removes himself to oslo to receive a prize. but he does not show up in berlin at the 20 it anniversary of an event of biblical

proportions, one that i am sure most of this in the room would never have imagined we would ever see. that tells you how he sees the world and reinforces that quotation. i could use one of dozen, in which you can see his priorities. and to speak of the cold war as an arbitrary, and not to see how routed they were in the fundamental values of the united states and west, as cleavages and some obsolete conflict, it is simply staggering but it tells you a lot about his world view. i thought the berlin event was very telling, particularly as you say leaving -- leaving out the great leader's reagan, thatcher, but john paul, and

others. gorbachev was a hapless caretaker. to his credit, he did not shoot people in the streets. and i give him credit, because you have to make a choice. but the unraveling was our doing. and it was the pressure that was applied relentlessly. and i remind people who do not remember that everyone now is a post-cold war cold war year. the people who are underground after the war in france, people forget in the 1980's at the enormous struggle that reagan and thatcher had, and a large demonstrations against reagan's nuclear policies. the demonstration that had to face down when she approve the placement of the pershings and

cruise missiles. all of this is forgotten as if everyone was on board. it was extremely partisan over all of those measures, the reagan supported the contras, except for a and that history, you are absolutely right, has been obscured and largely forgotten. >> israel has stated that a nuclear-armed iran is an existential situation for them, and it appears that europe and the obama administration have more or less accepted a nuclear- armed iran. it is suspect that israel will in fact attack, and if they do come into use see the poor -- the consequences of all that happening?

>> if 8 -- i think that in the in israel will and the consequences will be very grave. the only question i think what the israelis is a technical one. can this be done? do they have enough intelligence? is this stuff critical possible by air attack or not cars earmarked do they have the resources, the refueling capacity, to do major damage that would set them back a few years? the israelis are not imagining they will not get the solution. and you have a history that the jews have, even a few years is important, even if you have to -- even if you only have a temporary respite. but what will happen is predictable. the iranians will try to strike